3 ms·

So the alternatives you propose are (in reverse order): > I don't think that you're being very realistic. > you're somewhere outside the orthodoxy on climate

So the alternatives you propose are (in reverse order): > I don't think that you're being very realistic. > you're somewhere outside the orthodoxy on climate change. > the side effects of geoengineering probably aren't that bad Hubris.

aetherson 10y ago
I don't think that you understood my comment very well. So, look, if you don't believe that climate change will be disastrous, then you're perfectly within reason to say that geoengineering is a really bad idea. The beef that people have with you will not be that you're wrong to be opposed to geoengineering, their beef will be that you're wrong to think that climate change is no big deal. I'm not here to fight that fight. If that's your position, fine. If you DO think that climate change is a big deal (and by big deal, I mean you think it's somewhere between "likely to stall all economic growth worldwide for centuries" and "likely to kill all of humanity"), then it's kind of hard to imagine what worse consequences geoengineering could possibly have. And particularly, if you do think that climate change is a big deal (as described above), there aren't a lot of very realistic options besides geoengineering. It may be that even if we stopped ALL carbon emissions RIGHT NOW, we'd still have really bad climate change. And obviously, realistically, we just won't stop all carbon emissions now. We won't stop all carbon emissions in a decade, or two decades, or three. I am prepared to argue with you if you imagine that we can stop all carbon emissions now. The only fourth way I can imagine is that someone might somewhat reasonably believe that in the near future, technological advance will get us out of this. That we'll discover some way to do massive carbon-less power generation at very low cost and/or that we'll discover an obviously unproblematic way to do carbon sequestration on enormous scale. I will say that if you assign a high probability of disastrous climate change, I don't see how you'd assign a similarly high probability of those exact technological advances. In fact, I might call such precise foresight... hubris.
- diggernet 10y ago
  I'll give you this... your ending was well played. And I'll grant that if you truly believe that climate change is "likely to kill all of humanity", that easily leads to a "damn the consequences" attitude toward fighting it. However, your expression of the alternatives eliminates a lot of nuance. For example, suppose that climate change is "likely to stall all economic growth worldwide for centuries", meeting your definition of "a big deal". Is it really hard to imagine what worse consequences geoengineering could possibly have? What if geoengineering is "likely to kill all of humanity"? So, yes, I'll remain at least as concerned about geoengineering (and "damn the consequences" thinking) as I am about climate change.
  - aetherson 10y ago
    Okay, that's not crazy. I have a few responses: 1. I think that you're probably underselling "stall all economic growth for centuries." It's not that different from "kill all humans" (for example: it would be hugely globally destabilizing. The odds of nuclear war would go way, way, way up. For another example: it might well either restart exponential population growth like we had in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, or else cause a demographic death spiral). 2. It's pretty hard to believe that climate change is very likely to go right up to the edge of "stall economic growth" and not have a very significant chance of tipping over to worse scenarios. You already implicitly believe in some positive feedback cycles here. 3. It is actually pretty hard to imagine that specifically aerosolizing sulfur dioxide is going to cause really catastrophic consequences that global warming won't already. As other commenters have pointed out, volcanic eruptions cause massive sulfur releases already. If you believe that the environment is so, so, so sensitive to any changes that any change you might make is likely to cause spiraling destruction of the ecosystem, well, then doesn't it seem likely that our many existing changes have already sent us past the point of no return? Like, if we're making 100 changes on the scale of sulfur release (which we are), and one change much, much, much larger than sulfur release (carbon release), it seems a little unlikely that sulfur release is the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are some possibilities for nuance here! You can reasonably believe that, for example, ocean acidification is the bigger problem than temperature change per se, and sulfur release doesn't solve ocean acidification, and indeed may slightly (very, very, very slightly) contribute to it and more importantly may encourage people to regard carbon release as unproblematic and thus encourage more carbon use and thus more ocean acidification. But I don't usually see people making targeted critiques like the one above, the kind of critique that only applies to one specific proposal. It's usually just sort of a general reaction to anything other than reduction targets. And, honestly, reduction targets aren't going to work, guys. Not alone.
mehwoot 10y ago
Your comment wasn't asking for alternatives?

aetherson 10y ago

I don't think that you understood my comment very well. So, look, if you don't believe that climate change will be disastrous, then you're perfectly within reason to say that geoengineering is a really bad idea. The beef that people have with you will not be that you're wrong to be opposed to geoengineering, their beef will be that you're wrong to think that climate change is no big deal. I'm not here to fight that fight. If that's your position, fine. If you DO think that climate change is a big deal (and by big deal, I mean you think it's somewhere between "likely to stall all economic growth worldwide for centuries" and "likely to kill all of humanity"), then it's kind of hard to imagine what worse consequences geoengineering could possibly have. And particularly, if you do think that climate change is a big deal (as described above), there aren't a lot of very realistic options besides geoengineering. It may be that even if we stopped ALL carbon emissions RIGHT NOW, we'd still have really bad climate change. And obviously, realistically, we just won't stop all carbon emissions now. We won't stop all carbon emissions in a decade, or two decades, or three. I am prepared to argue with you if you imagine that we can stop all carbon emissions now. The only fourth way I can imagine is that someone might somewhat reasonably believe that in the near future, technological advance will get us out of this. That we'll discover some way to do massive carbon-less power generation at very low cost and/or that we'll discover an obviously unproblematic way to do carbon sequestration on enormous scale. I will say that if you assign a high probability of disastrous climate change, I don't see how you'd assign a similarly high probability of those exact technological advances. In fact, I might call such precise foresight... hubris.

diggernet 10y ago
I'll give you this... your ending was well played. And I'll grant that if you truly believe that climate change is "likely to kill all of humanity", that easily leads to a "damn the consequences" attitude toward fighting it. However, your expression of the alternatives eliminates a lot of nuance. For example, suppose that climate change is "likely to stall all economic growth worldwide for centuries", meeting your definition of "a big deal". Is it really hard to imagine what worse consequences geoengineering could possibly have? What if geoengineering is "likely to kill all of humanity"? So, yes, I'll remain at least as concerned about geoengineering (and "damn the consequences" thinking) as I am about climate change.
- aetherson 10y ago
  Okay, that's not crazy. I have a few responses: 1. I think that you're probably underselling "stall all economic growth for centuries." It's not that different from "kill all humans" (for example: it would be hugely globally destabilizing. The odds of nuclear war would go way, way, way up. For another example: it might well either restart exponential population growth like we had in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, or else cause a demographic death spiral). 2. It's pretty hard to believe that climate change is very likely to go right up to the edge of "stall economic growth" and not have a very significant chance of tipping over to worse scenarios. You already implicitly believe in some positive feedback cycles here. 3. It is actually pretty hard to imagine that specifically aerosolizing sulfur dioxide is going to cause really catastrophic consequences that global warming won't already. As other commenters have pointed out, volcanic eruptions cause massive sulfur releases already. If you believe that the environment is so, so, so sensitive to any changes that any change you might make is likely to cause spiraling destruction of the ecosystem, well, then doesn't it seem likely that our many existing changes have already sent us past the point of no return? Like, if we're making 100 changes on the scale of sulfur release (which we are), and one change much, much, much larger than sulfur release (carbon release), it seems a little unlikely that sulfur release is the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are some possibilities for nuance here! You can reasonably believe that, for example, ocean acidification is the bigger problem than temperature change per se, and sulfur release doesn't solve ocean acidification, and indeed may slightly (very, very, very slightly) contribute to it and more importantly may encourage people to regard carbon release as unproblematic and thus encourage more carbon use and thus more ocean acidification. But I don't usually see people making targeted critiques like the one above, the kind of critique that only applies to one specific proposal. It's usually just sort of a general reaction to anything other than reduction targets. And, honestly, reduction targets aren't going to work, guys. Not alone.

mehwoot 10y ago

Your comment wasn't asking for alternatives?